Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon: 30,000 Pound Bomb Too Small
smitty777 writes "According to the Pentagon, the 30,000-pound, precision-guided Massive Ordnance Penetrator GBU-57 bomb is just too small. Concerns around Iran's fortification of their nuclear program facilities has the DoD seeking from Congress something not quite as subdued as the GBU-57, the largest non-nuke bomb operated by the USAF. This 'smaller' bomb just recently won a prize for its ability to cut through 60 feet of concrete. The upgrades will cost $82 million on top of the $330 million spent so far to develop the system. There is some interesting high speed camera footage of the GBU-57 in the video below."
Light speed's too slow! We'll have to go straight to.... Ludicrous Speed!
The right to offend is central to the right to free speech.
Coincidentally, the construction plans for Iran's entirely peaceful nuclear facilities are being modified to require at least 120 feet of concrete covering to protect them from terrorist attacks and tsunamis.
The name of the bomb is "Massive"
How can you call it "Not big enough?"
In before the usual hippy dippy commentators come in with the usual "US spends too much on war", "Food not Bombs" bullshit.
It happens with every military related story here, and it is simply redundant It should be modded as such.
Please keep the politics out of it, or perhaps slashdot shouldn't haven't have a military section.
A prize like the X-Prize or something? A) who hands out prizes for stuff like this and B) where to I apply to be a judge?
bah.
Let's call it the Mountainous Occluded Fortification Ordinance.
I can see the fnords!
And the misconception how to resolve conflicts and disputes between humans efficiently is too big.
Just rev up the volume (and your ego), keep the green buck rolling and feel good about it.
.... it has nothing to do with "brown people" or white superiority. The Chinese have nuclear weapons and you don't see the Western World freaking the fuck out about that. Why is that? Because for all of their flaws the Chinese actually behave like adults in the global community. They don't sponsor terrorism, they don't threaten freedom of navigation on the high seas and they don't have an openly racist high level politician that denies the right of one of his neighbors to exist. If Iran wants to be treated like a grown up perhaps it should start acting like one.
BTW, I like the subject "Typical American". Do you realize that Europe is just as freaked out by the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran as the United States is? Actually it probably bothers them more; we aren't within range of Iranian missiles but most of Europe is.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
How about they drop more than one? The first gets 60 feet deep, the next gets 120 feet deep...
The remote nuclear sites in Iran have lunar like terrain - I think you're onto something here!
When a 15-ton bomb is too small, why don't we just nuke 'em?
Its pretty obvious that the miltiary-political-industrial complex is trying to talk us all into war with Iran and now you see one of the many things they plan to gain from it. Plus more power and control of the populace.
It won a prize? Can anybody enter a bomb? Does it need to be a bomb or just something extremely destructive? Can I enter my intestine destroying meatloaf of doom?
You already have a giant phallic bomb called a MASSIVE (ordnance) PENETRATOR and it's not good enough for you? Does everyone in the Pentagon have such a small penis or is it just the people in charge of purchasing?
As in life, a little pillow talk (State Department), should mitigate any shortcomings (DoD) you may think you have.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
A better question would be will they ever approach what's possible with nuclear warheads? Little Boy was 15 kilotons or 640,152,000,000,000 joules of energy released in less than the blink of an eye. Modern nuclear weapons are much more powerful and can be scaled up indefinitely using the Teller–Ulam design. The largest American weapon ever tested was 15 megatons -- 6.40152e+17 joules. The largest Russian weapon ever tested was three times as powerful. It will be a long time before you see a directed energy weapon that comes close to those energy levels.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Sure, kill a lot of innocent people for the wrongdoings of their leaders, great job.
I'm guessing you are just trolling though, no sane person could actually want that.
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Sequential Bombing System.... where a sequence of bombs is dropped concurrently in short succession. (ie: 4-8 bombs in a 60-120 second interval).
But SBS is a lame sounding name. How can that compete with Mother of All Bombs (MOAB)
How about Bombing On Sequence System (BOSS)
Now the BOSS BOMB has a nice Pentagon expenditure feeling way. Essentially the delivery system should transit from the bomber to target via a cruise delivery system. Which would contain 4-8 war heads each about a 1/4 to 1/2 of MOABs size. The delivery unit would circle target while releasing the individual warheads which would each be guided to their target at about 15-30 second intervals. Allowing the first bomb to detonate and blow a crater while the next bomb hits the new exposed area, so on and so on. Tests would need to be completed to determine the amount of time necessary between individual warhead impacts for optimum penetration.
---
Proposed solution to MOAB. Build big ballon under first layer of protection with lots of vents. When MOAB hits it explodes, but instead of crushing your super secret facilitity (that was obviously not secret enough if it's being bombed), the balloon detonates the bomb early and above and allows the pressure to escape through hundreds of vent area.
Bomb two, kills you...GAME OVER
Will Iran war be Obama's October Surprise? Triggered perhaps by false flag or provoked attack?
Exactly. Size doesn't matter. It's all about penetration power. I'm still not sure if our penetration power is actually lacking or if the military is just overcompensating.
Kill 'em from orbit!
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
From the Department of Defense which should be renamed to the Department of Wasting Tax Dollars..
Sure, kill a lot of innocent people for the wrongdoings of their leaders, great job. I'm guessing you are just trolling though, no sane person could actually want that.
If that mad dictator is just some raving lunatic in an asylum somewhere, then no, it's not appropriate to kill someone else because of his ravings. However, if people are following that mad dictator and paying taxes to his regime, then yes, it's entirely appropriate to kill his military, and if some civilian taxpayers get caught as well, that's ok.
Note. If you are in a military led by, or pay taxes to, a mad dictator, you're a legitimate target too. If we extend the definition of "mad dictator" just a little, no-one is innocent.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Forget the conventional.... go with ultra conventional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
Sure. We call these particular energy weapons "fusion devices." You let me know when a human-caused chemical reaction gets to 100 MT, lol. (reference is to the Soviet's Tsar Bomba, which was tested at a low (!) yield of ~50 Mt but was designed for 100Mt in actual use.)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
There are reasons why there are as few SEAL/Rangers/Green Berets/Delta/ParaRescue/Combat Controllers as there are, it's fucking hard to earn this designations. Most people can't earn them, ever. So trying to find an additional 500+ people to fill those roles would mean you need to relax standards. That's not happening.
30,000 pounds seems pretty close to the limit on how big you can make one of these before you need a whole new cargo plane to drop it.
They can't even use bombers to drop the existing MOAB...
Maybe a better idea would be to drop lots of smaller bombs and just "dig"... I suppose they've thought of all that.
Anyway... at some point they're going to have to build these bombs to attach like the Space Shuttle to that specially retrofitted 757 that can carry it on it's roof.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If there's one area in which the US has maintained it's superiority in, it's killing people. There's no question about it. The US still kills people better than any other country on the planet. Sure, we can't educate, feed, house, or otherwise care for our own people, or even protect them from inevitable natural disasters, but GODDAMN we can kill some foreigners!!!
I don't respond to AC's.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Each successive bomb would have to hit the exact same spot, and blow through a layer of debris in an ever-changing target zone. This isn't water torture, this is blowing the motherloving shit out of a huge chunk of reinforced concrete. You don't kill a tank by shooting it with an AK-47 a hundred times, you hit it once with something that will penetrate. The effects of lesser attacks are not necessarily cumulative.
... and Iran was part of that agreement. If Iran wants to gut that international framework and take the world back to the days of arms races they'll come out on the losing end of the equation; all of Iran's conceivable enemies have GDPs many times greater than hers. That's the whole reason why arms control treaties are negotiated in the first place; they are cheaper in the long run than trying to out build potential adversaries with bigger economies. FYI, this isn't unique to nuclear weapons, look up the Washington Naval Treaties sometime.
Personally, I don't see this so much a race issue so much as a "let's stop nuclear proliferation, it dilutes our own power, and it is scary in the hands of non-allies'.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Personally, this sounds like a use case for kinetic bombardment--drop titanium telephone poles on them from orbit.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
From TFA "secretly submit a request to Congress for funding"; so I guess it isn't a secret now is it?
Anyway, if ONE bomb can penetrate 200ft. and supposedly laser enhanced GPS targeting can allow almost pinpoint accuracy, how deep can two or more bombs go? I know it wouldn't be linear but even an additional 50ft. would be worth something.
Or maybe the air defenses around these installations (they must be the most highly protected items in the whole country) would make getting off more than one too dangerous?
If I were in charge of iranian nuke programs I would be building a bunch of inexpensive "cargo cult" facilities, start with a large rectangle region, paint it using perspective art so from satellite photos it looks like a hole in the ground with excavators and infrastructure, build dozens upon dozens of these along with real facilities of an identical profile. This would have the advantage of overstating capacity to enemies and of making successful strikes much more expensive, complex, and difficult to pull off
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
I know, it would be a radical departure from the traditional Teller-Ulam fission/fusion design and may not yield nearly as much bang, but a pure fusion bomb would be much cleaner. Everyone knows how important cleanliness is when starting a war. We could send drones with fusion bombs practically anywhere we suspected 'rouge' nations to be plotting WMDs. By nuking them with fusion, we could cleanly demonstrate just how dangerous such power is in the hand of those who might abuse it WITHOUT leaving behind any fissionable materials that may be traced back to us or cause 'collateral damage'. Definitely a 'win-win' for stopping nuclear proliferation and increasing jobs at home via the American military industrial complex. The only question, "How could you build such a tidy-bomb?" I see a patent opportunity.
But the Manhattan Project cost about $24 billion in adjusted dollars. So, when you look at it that way, this thing is actually a steal.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
How much does Stuxnet weigh? Yet it did much more damage than one of these bombs would. They are trying to solve the problem the wrong way.
If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
Isn't the bomb it's the video narrators voice because I am sure it's computer generated.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
This 'smaller' bomb just recently won a prize for its ability to cut through 60 feet of concrete.
How far has civilization come when we got to the point where bombs are winning prizes?
I am not really here right now.
It'll burn up in our atmosphere and what's ever left will be no bigger than a Chihuahua's head.
THL phish sticks
since using such a "clean" bomb on a nuclear site is bound to make a very dirty area, why bother ?
why not just use a nuke, maybe calling it "cleaner area" to convince the "vox populi" that it is "all right"...
humm, probably the marketing/PR company do not need as much cash as boing, .. silly me...
Mean while in reality what seems to be working is 2 guys on a motorcycle with a magnetic bomb.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Was it obvious and also STRANGE to anyone else that the video was randomly narrated by a robot british lady? I'm impressed because its solid voice work, from a machine. But you can still tell it wasn't a person.
Cool, you allready owe about 15 000$ per familly member for the Irak and Afghan war....
Do you really want to owe at the very least 30 000$ for the Iran war (that would be assuming you succeed to isolate iran from their neighbors and do not need to return to iran and afghan right after because they are kind of "unhappy", and assuming the millions of Irannian living in the US do not freak out because you killed their cousins and bombed their vacation house on the caspian (BTW on average they are quite well to do, most left iran before the revolution with a "LOT" of cash, and then proceded to make quite well for themselves...)
If you read many of the comments, you will find that most posters (not all) oppose this type of thing. It doesn't appear that this story was posted as a "rah-rah-rah" for the United States. It's about an interesting (if controversial) piece of military hardware. Some people will be interested in the technical aspects, some will want to discuss the morality / need for such weapons. And some will post without thinking first.
Sorry to feed the troll, folks.
For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
No civilians for you eh?
This is the sig that says NI (again)
When your business is to wage war, there is never enough.
'Nuff said.
This was actually already done in the initial attacks of the Iraq War. Going back and reading old news articles it doesn't appear to have been done with enough bombs to have worked, they only used two smaller bombs. I would imagine if we hit a facility with a dozen or so of our largest bunker busters, each a few seconds behind the first it'd work.
we can bomb China without leaving U.S. air space.
I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
It is disingenuous to claim US does not have the ordinance to destroy Iranian underground facilities. It clearly does.
The most important question is not "how" but "why".
Iran gleefully building 61 ft thick bunkers... Um Iran...what if we use two of them?
There's a long and distinguished history in the USAF of delivering massive ordnance bombs via cargo planes (see the daisy cutter and MOAB as examples). If you can open the rear hatch, roll it out, and achieve a margin of error smaller than the blast radius, then you're golden. In today's age of GPS-guided munitions that is a much lower threshold to cross than it's ever been.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
There's an ongoing editorial fascination on Slashdot with things military, and one gets the strong sense that these repeated write-ups, this "technical" interest, betrays a lack of perspective on moral and humanitarian considerations. We live in an extremely warlike society that has a lot of technological hubris; maybe it's time to stop focusing on the golly-gee details of bombs' destructive power, for example, and broaden our editorial concerns.
Sorry to respond to the sad human trying to minimize ideas he doesn't like with the tired "troll" epithet, folks.
It's true that successive attacks aren't cumulative but we did drop two successive bunker busters on one of Saddam Hussein's compounds back in the first Gulf War. I can't find a cite right now, but they were the original laser-guided bunker busters made from howitzer barrels that were dropped by two F-111 Aardvarks onto a ventilation shaft cover that was one square yard in size. The second bomb caused secondary explosions indicating a hard kill.
Advances in guidance technology, especially with GPS, will allow the bombs to be dropped at higher altitudes. I'm not sure what the terminal velocity of a bomb is, but it might increase from 30,000 ft to 50,000 ft. GPS will also allow the bombs to hit the same location with the same near-perpendicular angle as the ground, which will increase penetration. Furthermore, dirt carries shock really well. Concussion from the bomb may enable soft kills against equipment such as centrifuges and computers.
A B-2 can carry two of the MOPs. Two B-2s can drop four. Putting four of these suckers on the same location can probably cause much more penetration and concussion than only one, though not four times as much.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
If a Bomb explodes and removes 60 feet of concrete, how many bombs does it take to remove 1000 feet of concrete? Extra credit for saying out loud, "Diplomacy?"
Seems to me we could drop 2 and get a better effect that dropping just one.
Accelerating something to near light speed (90%) would require almost infinite energy as the rocks would dramatically increase in mass as they get closer and closer to c.
liberare massarum ex ignorantia, clausa descendit molestie.
psssstttt... hey Pentygone...
I can tell you how to build really keen antimatter bombs.
First though, you need to build a real launch infrastructure so you can build an armada of solar power satellites...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Yeah, it does matter. Since nobody else is buying Iranian oil, China is able to buy it at below market prices.
Because China has publicly proclaimed that they will not be the first to use nuclear weapons under any circumstances. That is a more restrained policy than that of the United States, which only exempts non-nuclear states from nuclear attack, and does not rule out a first strike.
That, and China is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. In my mind that carries more weight toward "acting like an adult" than the contrasts you attempted to draw between China and Iran.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm an American; my legitimate control ends where the country's borders and maritime boundaries lie. If you're inside them, or use weapons against the population or the infrastructure inside them, you're my problem, and I support a workmanlike mechanism to wholly terminate your ass. I might, depending on the nature of your incursion, support going further and eliminating your ability to do it again. I would not, by the way, support paying for medical care or rebuilding your infrastructure. You aggress, in my opinion, the consequences are entirely your responsibility.
You stay out, or behave within, you're not my problem. Someone comes inside your borders, assuming you're from some other country, that's *your* problem, and *you* need to deal with it. If you can't, then you may go the way of history. You can, *they* may go the way of history. Either way, my legitimate role is to have breakfast and read about it in the paper. I might feel regret, I might feel enthusiasm, but I would *not* feel the urge to intervene.
I have not in any way forgotten it, in fact I'm somewhat of a student of WWII, which means I know a considerable bit more about it than most people. However... yes, so? What's your point?
Well, other than over a thousand US nuclear weapons detonations, most of which dropped various amounts of fallout on the entire planet, yes. So?
Yes, so? Has Iran used nuclear weapons? No. Has Israel used nuclear weapons? No. Has France? No. Has England? No. Has the USSR? No. They all have them; yet no one has used them (well, except us, and I'm not saying that was a mistake, either.) So what's your point?
I don't say anything about Iran. I'm not an Iranian citizen. I don't concern myself with things they say about us, and I don't expect them to concern themselves with things we say about them. Also, what you're trying to do here is an exercise in "what if", which is bullshit. Iran has done nothing to make me think they are a threat to my country; ergo, I don't worry about them. I worry more about the loonies here that want to go in, and based on events that only exist in their imagination, do some terrible damage to some other sovereign country, thus setting a legitimate stage for other countries to come and do the same to us. National borders are what they are for a reason; violating them is a VERY bad idea.
Yes, absolutely.
No, we wouldn't. We'd use them as excavation tools, space drives, anti-asteroid devices, and so on. And there is no such thing as a perfect world anyway.
Buddy, wherever you got the idea that *you* know what direction *we* need to g
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Yep, fouled up the editing there, thank you for the correction. Well aware, just got tangled up in the editing. Sorry.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I wouldn't really call that an "energy weapon", but yes, chemical explosives are in a completely different league from nuclear explosives. The only reason to develop better conventional explosives is because we want to avoid actually using nuclear weapons -- not because they have any hope of ever being better.
Tell that to the A-10. One 30mm round against a modern tank is a joke. 60+ 30mm rounds hitting that tank in under a second is not...
It carries "only" 5,300 lbs of explosive. The "bigger" bomb probably would not carry any more explosive: just more weight to make it penetrate deeper.
There are other approaches, such as intelligent rocket-propelled bombs that smash through blast doors by brute force (that doesn't require all that much weight) and then blast their way down tunnels with rockets, bouncing off the walls and smashing through walls and doors. They wouldn't be as spectacular as these but might be more effective (if you can find an entrance to aim them at). The USA may have these and not be talking about them.
Seems to me that hiding all the entrances to a tunnel complex where heavy industrial operations are being carried out would be difficult.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
nope, only a doubling in mass (inertial) occurs at 90% light speed. It takes about 30 gigatons (TNT equivalent) of energy to accelerate 1 ton of mass to 90% C. that's a lot, but hardly "almost infinite"
No? Magic, then? lol
Be careful with that "we" there, pardner, you'll find yourself describing a situation that doesn't actually exist. I support the use of nuclear weapons under circumstances that some other people do not. But then again, I actually understand them and don't run around pretending death by nuke is somehow worse than death by firestorm, MOAB, landmine or a 50 caliber round, or that "da fawlout will killz us allz!", or that the death of thousands of American soldiers is somehow of greater value to us than dropping a nuke or two and keeping the soldiers alive.
For instance, would have been just fine with me if, in response to 9/11, we had dropped a nuke each on Riyadh, Mecca and the most significant Taliban headquarters would could identify in response to the 16 Muslim Arabs and 2...3 other Muslim state actors supported by Saudi money and the Saudi state religion. Not to worry, though, I'll never be president, we'll never stop meddling with other nations, and the Muslims will continue to hound us endlessly. Endless war for everyone, but no nukes. Those guys with the cigars are in 7th heaven.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Somebody set them up the bomb.
Terminal velocity delivery is lame, slap a 20 ft long booster section to the back of that thing and hit mach 5 before impact.
Got Code?
Or you could allow people to retake whatever test. When you fail the Seal training you fail it permanently and have to retake the entire training course because you missed your swim time by 10 seconds. Some of the training programs don't ever let your retake the test. They throw a LOT of people out on essentially technicalities because they have to weed the recruits down to single digits or they would overwhelm their own training programs (yes there are that many people applying).
They could quadruple the number of people in special operations and it wouldn't even be difficult to find the people. But at $10 million in training per individual and the time involved they'd have to take everyone currently in the field out of the field and put them into training the new recruits.
In a way though, it makes sense. Sure, you look at it as a "little mistake" if they miss a qual by a few seconds. But there's lots of missions they would operate in where "little mistake" means a school gets bombed instead of a target's mansion, or the correct wire isn't cut in time...
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
It sounds like they're trying to suck up to one of their Muslim neighbors (namely Turkey).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Israel developed nukes and nobody flipped an eyelid, and put them in Subs so no penetrating bomb can get to them. ... our bomb is too small in case we need to go against Iran.
Isreal and the US use the word Iran quite often when talking military hardware. Case in point
Iran would be nuts not to develop nukes and point them to Israel for no other reason other than the mad principal.
You ever see where most of those rounds land? Not on target. It'd be a neat trick to hit a moving object from another moving object that's being affected by turbulence while diving at an angle, and hit it with the precision of an expert marksman. One 30mm round may not obliterate a tank, but a shaped charge can be devastating.
If one is feeling creative, one could attach a large phenolic heat shield to the business end of one's kinetic-kill rod.
On the other hand, one can realize that before phenolic ablative heat shields were used, "hot metal" heat shields were the order of the day, and they simply relied on the ability of large pieces of metal to absorb huge amounts of heat before melting or boiling; the hot shield could then be jettisoned wholesale from the payload to be protected so that it didn't radiatively heat your space probe to its failure point.
I have no idea about the dynamics of temperature in hypervelocity impacts, but it seems reasonable that you'd lose some penetration and gain some blast radius if your projectile was white-hot at impact and about to boil anyway.
That's what JDAM is for, launch a series of JDAMS with a 2-3 second spread. In fact that could probably be done with a programming change to the launch control system whereas building a new bomb that we could never deliver to a highly controlled airspace (what? you're going to fly a C5 over an airspace full of SAM's?) is just stupid.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
It'd be a neat trick to hit a moving object from another moving object that's being affected by turbulence while diving at an angle, and hit it with the precision of an expert marksman
Yeah, that's called "a trained military pilot". Go to about 0:45 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCqXbfGEPMI - practically obliterated, and I don't think the tank moving at 30mph would have made much difference...
if you can laser-guide one or two follow-on hits into the same hole, I think you got something going. you might not immediately take out the "red team," but consider their reduced effectiveness... ;)
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
So what do you think chemical weapons are? Magic, then? We all know what the OP was talking about, no need to be an ass.
The last thing the world needs are cowboys like you in power. Non-psychopaths have no trouble understanding why nuclear weapons are to be avoided. How do you control the fallout? Are you ok with a slow, painful death from radiation for thousands of innocents for years to come after your objective has been achieved? Are you ok with other countries justifying nuclear weapon use because if we can do it so can they?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Well, there's the bomb-pumped X-ray lasers of Project Excalibur.
Then there's the bomb-pumped particle beams of project Casaba-Howitzer, weaponized versions of the Orion Drive's nuclear "pulse units"
Also, I just found the paper I mentioned earlier on fourth-generation (pure-fusion) nuclear weapons. By the way, I suspect they would actually be an excellent choice for launching an Orion-drive starship, or even an interplanetary cruiser, as they may be clean enough for a ground launch without causing a small but noticeable global spike in cancer rates.
Drop two of the smaller bombs. Better yet, drop 3 or 4.
Look you're talking about BIG MOTHA BOMBS. And technology that can take a missile in through a window. I think that being within a 10 meter strike zone with such bombs will be ample and sufficient.
Especially by the third or fourth one.
Your team is only as good as the weakest member of your team. There are a lot of guys out there that could probably make it if we trimmed 10 seconds off of the qualification tests, but in reality, those 10 seconds can make the difference in being seen by the enemy, making your extraction, arriving on time to a target or escaping a hail of gunfire / mortar fire. You want the best doing the things that others just can't physically do with the operative word being "best".
Actually, this is probably more of a reason for the Navy's railgun than ship targets.
That said, Titanium is a horrible choice. Way too light. Steel encased lead is better. Depleted uranium even heavier. Uranium waste the BEST. (That way you know they're not going to return to the facility anytime soon.)
Well, that's the thing. These bombs are meant to penetrate in a rather narrow fashion through so many yards of concrete, still intact, so that they can deliver the payload on the other side. Think of hammering an explosive-tipped nail into a board, and the tip explodes when it breaks through the back side. Now hammer in a nail half way, then hammer in another one within a few inches of it, then another somewhere within that same inch radius.. you still aren't getting all the way through. You've got to go through in one shot, or get yourself a drill. These aren't just huge explosions like the Daisycutter or MOAB, they are hardened vehicles that are meant to travel completely through the bunker and explode within.
MASS, not tensile strength buddy. Try Tungsten, hell even lead and steel have more mass per volume than Titanium, ideally you would use DU for maximum density.
And that's simply not true. I hear that all the time when I rant about the AMA causing deaths because they refuse to create more doctors. But there are many more applicants than there are spaces. There are applicants, rejected multiple times, who end up US doctors (I had a friend with rich parents who couldn't get in, despite good grades and scores and went to medical school abroad, then came to the US for a second residency and full doctorship, despite being a failure to get in to the deliberately restricted medical school spots. She's not incompetent. There just aren't enough spaces.
For the Seals, it's an honor just be be allowed to attend SEAL school, invitation only. Well, make it *harder* and invite more people, you'll get more graduates of a higher quality, right? Then, encourage more people to go in the military and you'll get a larger pool to select from. There's no reason to think there aren't 500 people capable of that job in the hundreds of millions in the US.
Even one in a million good means there are hundreds of them. So why go for 1 in 10,000,000? Is that last fraction of a percent any better? And how do you know you didn't screw up in the invitations so that the best candidate wasn't even given an opportunity to try?
Learn to love Alaska
War isn't about military superiority. It's about politics and economics. It simply wouldn't do to nuke Iran with the purported goal of reducing the threat of nuclear warfare.
It's officially tacky to post Slashvertisements. I think we may need to develope a similar more against Slashaganda.
I love bombs. We all love bombs. I would love nothing more than to sit around all day watching super-slow-mo footage of random objects being blown to hell... but this article doesn't even announce a new bomb to watch.
The only thing potentially newsworthy in this article is the shocking cost of the program... but the cost doesn't seem to be the highlight. The themes of this article are:
1. Our bombs are huge
2. We are making our bombs huger
3. We are making our bombs huger because of Iran's defenses
First, it contains obvious saber-rattling. It announces to Iran that we know about their fortifications, and that we are already working on ways to defeat them. Second, it encourages it's American audience to think of bombs, bombing, and bunkers in the same space as Iran, and to visualize them as an enemy being attacked... and as an enemy we have the ability to defeat.
Throw in the fact that it's coming from the Wall Street Journal, and the whole thing becomes embarrassing.
"according to U.S. officials briefed on the plan" and decided to leak it because this is something the public needs so desperately to know? What a joke.
Perhaps investing that money into the country would negate the reasons they have for being your enemy and save you the effort of dropping bombs on them.
Ah, another completely uninformed cluetard speaks out. Ok, here we go.
Do you know that the US has, so far, detonated over a thousand nuclear weapons? Do you know that the soviets have detonated over 700? France several hundred (maybe they won't surrender after all, eh?), Britain almost 50? And that China, India, Pakistan and others add still more to the total in sets of ten and more? Plus tests we don't even know about!
Now, just look around you. Do you see the devastation, the throngs of people dying in the street, sores on their bodies, etc.? No. You don't. What you *do* see is people living longer, better lives. Pretty much worldwide, too. After literally thousands of nuclear weapons detonations. Hmm. How do you reconcile that with your nuclear terrors at night? Oh, you haven't actually thought it through. Well, THERE is a surprise, eh?
Fallout is, in fact, not much of a problem, *especially* as compared to the actual detonation and *intended* results on-target: fireball, thermal pulse, shockwave, shrapnel, etc. And mind you, if those people are hammered, well, that was the point: They wouldn't be any happier if you'd dropped a conventional weapon on them and burned them to death in a conventional firestorm. Or burned them half to death, or shot them with a 50 caliber machine gun, etc. Look up the firestorms from WWII; Germany and Japan experienced many. Conventional weapons only. Conventional weapons are no better, in point of fact -- war is hell, and it doesn't matter if you're fighting with pikes or nukes. Nukes are just more efficient. Which brings us to their benefits. You attack a nuclear armed country that will actually respond (not us, obviously), and you are in some very deep shit, very quickly. So, obviously, best not to do that. And THAT is why nukes are a great idea.
Now that you should understand that fallout isn't the problem you thought it was, consider: if we drop one, or two, or hell, even ten more nukes, there isn't going to be any huge non-local fallout problem or any other kind of weapons-related problem, either. But the message will be clear: you fuck with us, and we will turn around and stomp you flat. And this, in turn, will tend to reduce those incidents. Just the way you are unlikely to attack some big bruiser, you are unlikely to attack a nuclear weapons holder - IF, and here's they key, they have the will to use them. That would not be us -- we would rather pump our war machine and kill thousands of our own soldiers than actually solve the problem, because we like our economy to spin along pretty well. However, if the Muslims decide to attack Israel... I think you can expect some serious fireworks.
lol... that cat is long out of the bag. But yeah, if they want to use 'em, that's fine with me. They aggress, they're responsible for the response. The more nations have them, the less of that there will be, though. Consequently, I'm all for every nation having a nuclear arsenal ASAP. I would suspect that would lead to a lot fewer wars once things shook out a bit.
One last point: modern nukes make considerably less fallout than the old ones did -- we know just how to do that now. So blowing a few off would cause even less trouble than in the old days, fallout-wise.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Since when did Holocaust denial become a reason for the United States to attack another nation state? I thought the attitude of the U.S. people was supposed to be more along the lines of : "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
I actually find it quite distasteful to use the Holocaust as an excuse for a war that would result in the deaths of millions of people. And it appears I'm not the only one. Obscene: Using the Holocaust to Justify War With Iran .
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That won't help with penetration
Guided penetrator dropped from high orbit. Makes conventional explosives look like play time.
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Are you kidding?
You think the Iranian are so stupid to hide their nuke facilities under merely 60 feet of concrete?
Plus, in case you guys still don't get it, Iran has developed some of the world's toughest concrete mixture - they actually won the prestigious awards (for several times) from the American Concrete Institute for developing really strong concrete.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
No, actually I think the how is much more relevant. Are you saying that if there's a good why, than the how (B61 vs GBU-57) is not important? Clearly the country and it's allies would disagree with you.
"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish"
Albert Einstein
The US has the ordinance to destroy everyone and everything on the whole planet. That doesn't mean they don't need more targeted weapons better suited to their purpose.
In particular, it would be rather perverse to use tactical nukes to attack Iran, ostensibly in an attempt to stop their nuclear ambitions. That little ironic twist could quite possibly spur the development of nukes by various nations around the world.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Accuracy may leave a bit to be desired.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Everyone's promised not to use the nuclear bombs that they have stockpiled all over the world. So we keep making bigger and bigger conventional bombs.
But... Why... A tactical strike with proper planning goes a lot farther, and doesn't require a freaking fortune to design, test, and implement. What happened to the good old days of special forces HALO jumping under the cover of darkness, and neutralizing the threat? Isn't it a lot easier to force your way through the door, rather than dropping a bomb on top of a fortified position?
I guess the concussion of a big bomb is more impressive than virtually silently destroying a target. I guess if the goal is collateral damage, they're asking for the right tool for the job.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
We in this case is strictly the people making decisions about what weapons to field and develop.
The Chinese have nuclear weapons and you don't see the Western World freaking the fuck out about that. Why is that?
let me tell you why - because at the time of chinese spinning out on their own, there was ussr and usa just couldnt go and bomb them to hell like it did to other countries.
hell, mcarthur even intended to, and openly requested to be allowed to bomb china during korean war. and thats why he was retired. because there was ussr, and the result would be world war iii.
and in the passing time in between korean war, in which chinese troops actually participated, and today, you had a lot of other stuff like vietnam and so on. you lost vietnam to chinese actually, not some random guerillas. NOTHING like these was perpetuated by iran, iraq or afghanistan.
but despite that, u.s. was not able to go bomb the shit out of them. thanks to ussr in the early stages, and then chinese had established themselves.
please dont talk about stuff when you dont know shit about history. in the wake of above historical actuality, your ignorance shows in your below bullcrap.
They don't sponsor terrorism, they don't threaten freedom of navigation on the high seas and they don't have an openly racist high level politician that denies the right of one of his neighbors to exist
Read radical news here
When someone can kick your ass, has positioned himself to kick your ass, and has just recently kick your neighbor's ass, a sane person plays nice, and waits for him to lose interest.
u.s did not lose interest in 'liberating' countries in the last 2 decades. anyone proposing or believing otherwise, is flat out stupid.
Read radical news here
They don't need to destroy the entire facility, simply bombing all of the air vents and sealing off the exits would kill everyone inside the facility and render it effectively inoperable for months and probably years. Additionally, it would not be difficult, especially with air superiority, to ensure that no repair or rescue effort proceeds until such time as we allow it to.
Nuclear testing is done far away from where people live or intend to live. Also it is contained underground most of the time, *that* is why the radiation from testing has not been a big problem. In actual usage the radiation was a *huge* problem. At least half of the casualties of the bombing of Hiroshima were from the effects of radiation long after the war ended. But I'm the "cluetard", whatever. The rest of your post is either equally ignorant or sociophathic, so I won't bother to continue.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Anyone else get a little scared at reading this line? "Once things go into the mountain, then really you have to have something that takes the mountain off," the official said.
To do that you need to get a satellite into position and them have some way of manoeuvring the weapons once they are released. Once your stock of weapons is used up you can't easily replenish them. Not an ideal weapon if you can build a conventional bomb that does the same job.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If the US launched an explicit military attack on Iran, about half of those flags would disappear - along with their flag poles.
Overcompensate Much?
Also that makes no sense? Is this a weapon that penetrates Massive Ordnance? Or does some general just like the idea of issuing orders to "MOP up!"
Massive Bunker Penetrator might make more sense really.
Well if we're going to talk dirty about gaza strip politics, we can just cut down to bare metal. They want them out of the area and to stop populating it since it was part of the land designation.
If there are misunderstandings (by someone else, not the owner), it can be brought up with the League Of Nations. (U.N.) Populating an area is in many ways considered claiming ownership, and is frowned upon.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Exactly. Those guys and girls are polished, and have gone through a virtual gauntlet of training that weeds people out like a sieve. It's quite amazing, in my eyes. We also need to realize that S.E.A.L. are different than Rangers, etc etc. and are fine tuned instruments for specific tasks.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Having been through Ranger school, I can say yes, that last fraction matters. You would feel the same had you been through one of those schools.
Good point... and I didn't see Fat Man & Little Boy penetrating anything as it detonated in the air.
I do have to admit though, the idea of penetrating a couple of feet of concrete then detonating something of high magnitude is guaranteed to do way more damage then a thousand of said bombs blowing up overhead.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Poor analogy.
Place a M80 on a 2"x6" plank. Light it off. Place another one within a centimeter of the first. Light it off. Repeat one or two more times.
Result, you're 2"x6" has been cut in half and object is complete.
The sooner Israel stops driving US foreign policy, the better. Iran buried it's nuclear installations BECAUSE Israel has been threatening to bomb them for over decade and Israel actually DID bomb Iraq. Would you build Fukushima in the open air if you were concerned that the f-wits in Tel Aviv were going to bomb it? There is no evidence - and never has been - that Iran is making a nuclear bomb. They are a theocracy ruled by Allah....and Allah (according to the Iranian head of state) has declared nuclear weapons contrary to his will. For people who take their religion seriously....that's the end of that. If they were now found to actually be making a bomb, EVERY Iranian would know their religion was being pissed on by the people at the top. That would lead to consequences. I guess Americans, used to gross hypocrisy about religion, can't imagine people who mean what they say on the subject.
Only boring people are ever bored.
America already knows they can glass over Iran in a matter of seconds.
It puts the fun back into it when you can fine tune it.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Only issue with that is that the rescue forces can legitimately wear the red cross, and bombing them is a violation of the Geneva Convention. You could probably mine the living daylights out of the area before the rescue team shows up but bombing anything with a cross on it is verboten.
Now, if you can blanket the area with FAEs you might be able to aphixiate the inhabitants assuming they don't have sealed ventilation (the CO2 would dissipate quickly outside).
Myth. Wrong. The primary US nuclear testing facilities (NTS) were (are) located 65 miles from Las Vegas.
Myth: Still wrong. here's a graph of aboveground test yields. Here is data that breaks out aboveground tests from belowground tests. If you're too lazy to read, then I'll just tell you: The vast majority of tests prior to 1962 were aboveground, and there were a shitload of them.
Yes, of course, we dropped a nuclear weapon on them! Good grief, it's like shooting a rabbit for dinner and then complaining because you found a hole in it! How many soldiers and civilians died during and after the war because they had only one lung, or spinal injuries, or brain damage, or whatever? Get this through your head: When you fire off a weapon at someone and you don't miss, you're going to hurt them. They may die immediately, they may be severely injured and die some amount of time later, or they may linger on, or they may heal. That's what weapons do. That's the point!
What you're talking about here isn't about "fallout", it's a primary weapons effect. You haven't just moved the goalposts, you changed fields entirely here. I am perfectly ready to stipulate that if you drop a nuke on someone, there will be deleterious effects. lol!
No, I think that was far too kind, actually. You're clearly an idiot.
lol. Yeah, well, given your success rate - zero - maybe it's time to hang up your debating hat anyway. Calling me ignorant for pushing the facts in your face is pretty funny too. But you get on with your bad self. On the Internet, you're a superhero. A legend in your own lunchtime.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Which doesn't address the issue that the last fraction may not have even been invited because of the selection process, and more spaces available will increase the chances that the best of the best will attend the school.
And yes, I do understand that they teach you that you are better than everyone else if you make it through. The whole "you can't understand unless you did it" doesn't work.
Learn to love Alaska
The selection process is setup so that the best of the best are the ones that are being invited. With that being said, are there mistakes in invitations? Sure. but that's why there are processes in place to weed those people out and make sure that you are only getting the best. There are reasons why certain special operations will only recruit from other special operations groups lower down the chain and why you cannot apply for selection to some.
If I tell you what it's like to fly a plane, do you really know what it's like or are you just basing that on what you've been told? Well, this is the same thing. unless you've been there, you really won't understand the amount of dedication, persistence, training, fortitude and mentality that it takes to make it into these programs. When it comes down to the nitty gritty, if I have the choice of 7 men that can hit 40/40 at variable distances or 6 that can and 1 guy that shoots 39/40, I'm going for the 40/40. even though it's only a 2.5% difference.
If I tell you what it's like to fly a plane, do you really know what it's like or are you just basing that on what you've been told?
I had an idea of what it would be like to fly a plane. Then I did it. And it was remarkably similar to what I had expected. The same has happened to me multiple times on other things, I'm a parent, and my older sister's first kid is about 10 years older than mine. I had offered suggestions to her previous to my parenthood and she and our mother dismissed them as uninformed, as I only had a degree in psychology and years of life experience as a person who lives with their eyes open. And no, as a parent of two, my mother was trying to pick on me and asked me if it was as easy as I thought (referring back to my suggestions to my sister). Of course, I told her it was, as I was right 10 years prior, though no one would listen. Just because someone doesn't have the experience doesn't mean they are always wrong.
Well, this is the same thing. unless you've been there, you really won't understand the amount of dedication, persistence, training, fortitude and mentality that it takes to make it into these programs.
I've heard that about a number of programs I've been through, and it's never been right once. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying I don't believe you. And the only way to prove me wrong is to send me through one of the programs and see if I can pass, which would never happen.
When it comes down to the nitty gritty, if I have the choice of 7 men that can hit 40/40 at variable distances or 6 that can and 1 guy that shoots 39/40, I'm going for the 40/40. even though it's only a 2.5% difference.
And if that 39/40 is 10% better at orienteering (something I've found lacking in military people I've dealt with, even one who was an orienteering instructor), would you pick them over the 40/40.
Learn to love Alaska
The Red Cross is also a neutral organization. They have to be careful that their activities, particularly those which take place in combat zones, do not endanger that neutrality. It's mostly academic anyway because the United States is unlikely to overtly attack Iran.
Yes, because the reality is, when you are hunkered down in the middle of a village exchanging fire, orienteering does nothing for you other than knowing your extraction routes. I will not say that each and every aspect isn't important, because it is and it is the reason those standards are as tough as they are.
"Keep the politics out of it"? War IS politics. Wow, the naivety you display is shocking.
The Red Cross symbol is more than the organizational symbol of the International Red Cross - it is also a protective symbol recognized by the Geneva Conventions. It can be worn by personnel not associated with the International Red Cross and must be respected. It can only be used in certain circumstances, including armed forced medical personnel.
I would think that responding to a bombing to rescue anybody still inside would be considered a legitimate use of the Red Cross symbol. The Geneva Conventions weren't really designed with the facilitation of the assassination of specific individuals in mind. The concept was that combat is more about capturing ground and blowing things up, and the people guarding both are not really the targets of war. If you're hitting a bunker specifically with the goal of killing the people inside and no so much the bunker itself then the Conventions actually work against you somewhat (they don't prevent you from hitting the bunker, but they do prevent you from attacking rescuers, and you are required to accept the surrender of anybody inside).
And shooting at a paper target from prone, kneeling, and standing directly translates to the ability to do the same in a combat zone?
Learn to love Alaska
It's not about the shooting. I was using it as an example to say, you can't take people that don't make the cut across the board. A single good score does not mean that the person is going to make a great special forces soldier. This is why there are numerous go/no go tests involved.
FYI, when I was in, we didn't shoot at paper targets... they were little green plastic men, which actually added some humor to it for me lol
My sole point was that opening up the admissions without lowering the standard will allow for more people to pass without lowering the abilities of those who did. My experience with a ranger was that they didn't look for the best rangers when selecting who was admitted, but more looked for who was more likely to make it through, with the implication that the two are the same, when anyone who looks at screening criteria of any kind (like the SATs) knows that predictors of school performance do not necessarily track as well with performance after school.
Learn to love Alaska
Exactly. If you want to be nice, "not using nukes" doesn't manage to cover it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Yes... that would be "they", not "we."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
That can vary depending on the people you have doing the selection. I can only speak for the documented requirements and what I am capable of doing. I would say that opening up to more applicants might gain the goal you seek, but from experience, I just can't put my support behind it.
And you are right, scores in that manner do not always point to good performers, you've got to use them as a barometer to see if the person is capable though.
It can only be used in certain circumstances, including armed forced medical personnel.
A battalion equipped with picks, shovels and earth movers probably doesn't qualify.
I would think that responding to a bombing to rescue anybody still inside would be considered a legitimate use of the Red Cross symbol.
Perhaps, but all of the exits are sealed remember? (see above).
The Geneva Conventions weren't really designed with the facilitation of the assassination of specific individuals in mind.
They also weren't designed to protect those who hadn't also signed. I may be mistaken, but I don't think that Iran is a signatory. In other words, if a nation wants consideration for their armed forces then they must also submit themselves to the same rules. For example we don't accord these courtesies to terrorist organizations, such as Al-Qaeda, in part because they don't accord them to us.
The concept was that combat is more about capturing ground and blowing things up, and the people guarding both are not really the targets of war.
I have never heard anyone else put forward that interpretation, but that's never been true in warfare. Destroying the ability of the enemy to continue fighting, including killing of enemy personnel and destruction of his equipment, has always been central to the practice and strategy of warfare. In the case of total wars, WWII being the canonical example, the mobilization of entire societies into the war effort makes almost everyone a legitimate target including those guarding and working in industrial targets.
If you're hitting a bunker specifically with the goal of killing the people inside and no so much the bunker itself then the Conventions actually work against you somewhat
That depends upon who's interpreting it. The winner gets to decide who was in violation of what provisions and naturally the winner himself is always excused. That's the nature of war, to the victor go the spoils.
they don't prevent you from hitting the bunker, but they do prevent you from attacking rescuers
That's the trouble with those cluster bombs, they always wait around for whoever is coming next. Darn.
and you are required to accept the surrender of anybody inside
And the Germans in WWII were required to accept the surrender of every ship before sinking it, except that didn't happen did it? And you know what? The Allies did the exact same things. The only difference was that we won and the Axis lost. The Geneva conventions are full of fine principles, but the grim reality is that war makes savages of us all.